Good news ,BUT the same sensor, same poor DR, etc...

Interesting. Why does GH3 get 50Mbps codec, and the AG-AF100A not? Or maybe specs are incomplete.

Well, this should be competetively priced overall.. As it seems under-specced and all it could be an interesting option at 2kUSD, body only (imo).

It wouldn´t surprise me if they use the gh2 sensor though. :) The information tells us that external recording can be done.. and this tells me that there is reason to doubt the relevance of this product.

@paglez

Not sure if there is a sensor change between the two. For the DVX100 line there was a sensor change between a 4x3 sensor to a 16x9 sensor in the DVX100A, and with the HVX200 line there was a small sensor change in the HVX200A as well bringing from a noisy ISO 320 to a clean ISO 500. I'd venture there is a small sensor change in the AF100 also, but I'm not sure what the benefits are. The sensor might be on par with the GH3.

Not true. Like I said, the DVX100 and HVX200 have sensor changes with just "A" or "B" model increments.

Agreed

I don't think there is any way they put a new sensor into a product that barely sells.. Sensors cost millions of $$ to develop and fab. I would wager that they haven't even broken even with the costs of the original design. I think this is just a firmware update and a new model #. This is done all the time in the product design world. Just give it an update and a new model # and try to get more sales on the same hardware.

I guess there has to be some hardware change too as it is said that AF100 could not output 10bit (not even with an impossible to do hack).

@Brian202020 That's not necessarily true that you'd need a hardware change to go from 8 bit to 10 bit. It depends on what is generating the signal. If it's an FPGA or DSP/processor then it could be as simple as a new program. If it's an hardware conversion ASIC that generates the signal then, yes, it could be hardware limited but I seriously doubt it. I'd bet that it's DSP generated and then buffered through a dumb driver IC. That's the most sensible route. As for the hearsay from some source that says they heard from Panasonic that they can't do something because of a hardware limitation.. I design electronics and I use that excuse all the time to keep people from requesting features.. :)

Nah, just because it's software doesn't mean it's simple. Even then, there is tons of PV and testing to be done on the software, and then again on the system to make sure it's rock solid. Nobody wants to send out a software update and get a bunch of bricked units back into service. Either that or they suddenly discovered that it could be done, or had to rewrite the software to re-allocate resources or who knows. The large corporation train moves very slowly.

That depends too. When I do hardware updates, things usually work or they don't. There are no in-deterministic states like what are possible in software. I can usually load a schematic, make the changes, give to the PCB layout guy, and send it to the PCB manufacturer within a day. From there, a week for PCB and stuffing and I'll know if it works.. I then give it to the software guys who spend months blaming hardware for stuff not working before they find their bugs and it works. :)

Most companies don't like hacking their products because they are afraid that the user will return the product if it becomes broken. If this happens during the warranty period then this is lost revenue. They also don't like when their products are tampered with and then used because it could cause false advertisement. While the hack helps panasonic right now, if the hack somehow blew up the camera and somewhere on the internet a potential customer reads that a "panasonic camera blew up", then that is going to hurt their revenue as well, regardless of the truthfulness of it.

Would be great if it had ETC mode